[2025:RJ-JP:31415] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5593/2025 Rajendra @ Kadu S/o Shri Bhairo Singh, R/o Barwana, Police Station Masalpur, District Karauli (Raj.) (The Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In District Jail Karauli). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma and Mr. Amir Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun with Mr. Anurag Chahar for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 07/08/2025 1. This instant application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the petitioner-accused in FIR No.265/2024 dated 16.12.2024 registered at P.S. Masalpur District - Karauli, whereby the petitioner-accused has charged under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 125, 352 and 109(1) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated by complainant. He further submits that as per report there was a free fight between two groups and during pelting of stones, one of the stones hit deceased which resulted into death of Ratiram who is a 73 years old infirm person. He further referred injury report and PMR and submitted that there is [2025:RJ-JP:31415] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5593/2025] one injury upon Ratiram and as per eye-witness Harman and others, this injury is attributed to Ramveer. He submitted that the presence of other person is most natural. He further submitted that the role and involvement of present petitioner is not specifically mentioned in the report which has been filed after a delay. He further submitted that this petitioner accused is in custody since his arrest on 26.12.2024 and police has already filed a charge-sheet and disposal of sessions case will take time. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the evidence has not been recorded before the trial Court and at this stage, the role and involvement of petitioner cannot be decided in bail application. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 6. On basis of report lodged by son of deceased Ratiram on 16.12.2024 about assault on 14.12.2024 by group of persons including present petitioner, a report was registered and during investigation, Ratiram succumbed to injuries. After investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet against Santoki, Ramveer and Rajendra but kept pending against Radheyshyam under Section 193(9) of BNSS. This petitioner- accused is in custody since 26.12.2024 though Ratiram has expired on 27.12.2024. 7. This petitioner accused is named in FIR and admittedly Harman is one of the injured who is an eye-witness and I am [2025:RJ-JP:31415] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5593/2025] of considered view that role and involvement of any individual cannot be judged by police investigation. The petitioner is also forwarded along with two other persons including Ramveer, who is responsible for deadly assault upon Ratiram. 8. Thus, considering totality and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of considered view that this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail, before recording statement of eye-witness. 9. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant bail application filed by Rajendra @ Kadu is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/64